Winona County board tables after-the-fact variance request for Shetler property, extends 60-day review

Jordan Potter, chair of the Winona County Board of Adjustment, on Thursday presided over a planning petition concerning two after-the-fact variances and a conditional-use permit for a 5.72-acre parcel in Saint Charles Township.

Olivia, a county planning staff member, told the board the petitions from Jake and Edna Shetler are for (1) allowing a dwelling to remain on prime soils and (2) allowing a dwelling to sit inside the required feedlot setback. Staff described the structure as a single building containing commercial cabinetry space and temporary living quarters currently occupied by the Shetlers' son, who works on the site. Staff said the closest point from the structure to a neighboring feedlot is about 285 feet, well under the 1,000-foot setback that applies when a neighboring property has more than 50 animal units.

Olivia said the matter is processed "after the fact" because the dwelling existed before the county issued any permits; she said the petitioners were notified and had begun working with staff after receiving a notice but were not present at the hearing. She reviewed maps showing the site sits largely on class 3 soils and explained the county's analysis and draft findings support granting the variances with conditions.

Multiple board members pressed staff on enforcement history and whether the county has effective penalties for unpermitted buildings. A board member cited an ordinance provision for violations and asked whether fines or doubled permit fees could be applied; staff confirmed the county assesses an after-the-fact permit fee that is typically higher than the standard fee and said the department could add a condition to recover additional fees in this case. Counsel and staff noted the county's enforcement approach has focused on bringing properties into compliance and that courts in past matters have sometimes reduced assessed fines.

Several members said they were uncomfortable making a final decision with the applicants absent and asked whether tabling the matter would risk automatic approval under the county's 60-day statutory review. Staff and counsel explained the 60-day period (noted in the hearing as ending April 20 based on the application timeline) can be preserved if the county sends timely notice of delay or the applicants sign a waiver. Based on those concerns, a board member moved to table the application and to extend the county's 60-day review window by an additional 60 days; another member seconded the motion. The board voted in favor of tabling the application and directed staff to draft and send a certified letter stating the reason for the extension and to attempt to contact the petitioners before the next docket.

The board also discussed enforcement alternatives, including administrative penalties and whether the parcel's earlier conditional-use permit (for the commercial cabinetry use) could be reviewed for compliance. Staff recommended evaluating the petition under the variance criteria if the board elects to hear the matter, and otherwise returning with information requested by the board.

The board concluded by asking staff to notify the petitioners of what was discussed and what materials would be needed if the matter returns to the docket. The item was tabled; no final disposition on the variances or CUP was made at the meeting.